B Naive Calculation of the Age of the Universe

AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the limitations of a simplified calculation for the age of the universe using the formula t = d/v, where d is the distance between galaxies and v is their speed of separation. It points out that this method assumes constant recessional velocities, which is misleading due to the universe's dynamic expansion influenced by dark energy and matter. The conversation clarifies that, historically, galaxies have receded at velocities greater than H_0d until about 5 billion years ago when acceleration began to dominate. A more accurate approach involves using integrals to account for the changing speeds over time. Overall, the naive derivation fails to consider the complexities of cosmic expansion.
jeffbarrington
Messages
23
Reaction score
1
I have marked this as high school level, although I am studying an undergraduate general relativity course, and just want to get some basics right.

Whenever I look for a 'cheap and dirty' method of calculation for the age of the universe, with a Hubble constant not changing with time, I am met with:

t = d/v

where I am meant to believe that t is the age of the universe, d is the separation between two galaxies at some great distance apart, and v is their current speed of separation, given by v = H_0d. However, they haven't always been moving at this speed apart from each other; up until now, they have been traveling at a speed < H_0d. Why are these 'derivations' failing to point out this flaw and what is the workaround?

Thanks
 
Space news on Phys.org
As you note, this derivation of the age of the universe is naive. That's all there is to it. As you correctly surmise, the naivety in it concerns the recessional velocities being constant. That is to say, the age it nets you is the age you'd get in an universe without dark energy accelerating the expansion and without matter and radiation retarding it. (This is called Milne expansion, btw.)
jeffbarrington said:
However, they haven't always been moving at this speed apart from each other; up until now, they have been traveling at a speed < H_0d.
This bit is incorrect. For most of the history of the universe, comoving observers have been receding from each other at recessional velocities higher than ##H_0d##. It's only since approx. 5Gly ago that the velocities are increasing. See the graph below:
recession velocity history.PNG

As you can see, the initial impulse was very high. During the period of high density, recessional velocities were retarded at a very high rate. Around the 8Gly point, due to continuous dilution of matter and radiation dark energy density started dominating, and recessional velocities begun increasing.
 
Just to ensure that Jeff understands the meaning of the graph, Vgen stands for the recession rate of a generic galaxy that presently has a recession rate of c, i.e. some galaxy that is somewhere on the Hubble sphere now, at a comoving distance of 14.4 billion light years from us. Due to the accelerated expansion, that galaxy is presently moving through our Hubble sphere from the 'inside'. It came into our 'then' Hubble sphere at t ~ 3.5 billion years.
 
It's similar to calculating a time t=d/v for a car moving at a varying speed v(t). The proper way is to rephrase the expression into an integral.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top